Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

Here’s a real, hard-core scientist (M.I.T. good enough for you?) who highlights the rise of an attitude of ideological orthodoxy within the scientific community – complete with its own version of a de-facto inquisition to actively suppress any findings that go against the prevailing dogma – in this case concerning global warming & its supposed effects.

There have been repeated claims that this past year’s hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science–whether for AIDS, or space, or climate–where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

This is NOT a good thing! For the record, the Chief changed his major field of study from Political Science to Biology to flee the effects of political correctness – but it has spread its insidious evil even to matters that, based on clear scientific evidence, should be beyond debate.

This piece is well worth reading, with a lot of information on the situation, as Dr. Lindzen makes his way to his all too sad conclusion:

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

Indeed.